Loading AI Vortex evidence…
Preparing the requested public record.
Public trackerEvidence checked Jul 23, 2026 · Latest decision Jul 21, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 81/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.
Stokka v. Stokka
SC North Dakota · May 7, 2026
ND / stateEditorial impact: mediumpro sefake citationsfamilytrial
Direct answer
What happened in this matter?
Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant's brief cited multiple irrelevant, fictitious, or nonexistent legal authorities; the court identified these as likely AI hallucinations. Outcome: Double costs awarded as sanction.
- Why the court cared
- The record concerns whether authorities presented to the decision-maker existed and could be verified. The tracked outcome is Double costs awarded as sanction; the linked source controls the precise reasoning.
- Why it matters now
- This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving AI (implied, unspecified) with Double costs awarded as sanction in SC North Dakota, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
Why this matter is tracked
Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant's brief cited multiple irrelevant, fictitious, or nonexistent legal authorities; the court identified these as likely AI hallucinations. Outcome: Double costs awarded as sanction.
Operational lesson
This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving AI (implied, unspecified) with Double costs awarded as sanction in SC North Dakota, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
Record details
North DakotaSingle-state evidence scope
CourtSC North Dakota
Jurisdictionstate
Circuit8th Circuit
DateMay 7, 2026
AI
AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)
Party typePro Se Litigant
OutcomeDouble costs awarded as sanction
Known amount$1,000
Professional sanctionNo
Attribution boundary
What the record establishes about AI use
reported
AI (implied, unspecified) is recorded in the source dataset; confirm the basis in the linked document.
Procedural posture
Double costs awarded as sanction
Correction behavior
Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.
Tracked discrepancy record
1 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant's brief cited multiple irrelevant, fictitious, or nonexistent legal authorities; the court identified these as likely AI hallucinations.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Stokka v. Stokka?
- Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant's brief cited multiple irrelevant, fictitious, or nonexistent legal authorities; the court identified these as likely AI hallucinations. Outcome: Double costs awarded as sanction.
- Why does Stokka v. Stokka matter for legal AI risk?
- This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving AI (implied, unspecified) with Double costs awarded as sanction in SC North Dakota, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
- What does the public record establish about Stokka v. Stokka?
- The record summarizes the outcome described in the linked public source. The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive. This page is not a substitute for the complete docket, subsequent history, or jurisdiction-specific advice.
- Which source supports this Stokka v. Stokka summary?
- The recorded source is Damien Charlotin case archive. It is classified as publisher document archive; review the linked material and subsequent docket history before relying on this summary.
Related matters
Related by court, jurisdiction, tool, or classified failure pattern. Similarity does not imply the same facts or outcome.